A block thrown through a home window. Cars vandalized. Hate-filled anonymous phone calls at home and work. Swastikas scrawled on houses of worship. Physical assaults. Dismissal from employment because of political views.

Are these examples of retaliation against civil-rights activists in the South in 1954? Attempts by an authoritarian government to quash dissent?

No, this is the sort of intimidation that Americans who support marriage as the union of a man and woman can face today. Persecution of opponents is becoming a tool of the trade for some gay-marriage activists, who -- ironically -- seem to view themselves as beacons of tolerance.

Now, the groundwork for such intimidation is being laid in Minnesota.

In an early skirmish in the battle over the marriage amendment, which will be on the ballot in 2012, the state Campaign Finance Board has issued a ruling that could require a nonprofit organization to disclose the identity of supporters if that organization contributes to the marriage-amendment campaign.

The board's ruling breaks with the interpretation of the law in other recent amendment campaigns, and is an attempt to change the rules in midstream.

As a result, Minnesotans who believe that gay people have a right to live as they wish, but who oppose redefining marriage, may find their civil rights, livelihoods or safety threatened if they dare to oppose what's becoming politically correct orthodoxy.

The people of California can tell you where disclosure rules can lead. Each of the incidents I opened this column with occurred there during the 2008 debate over Proposition 8, the state's marriage amendment.

Ask the restaurant manager who was forced to resign after her $100 donation triggered a street protest and a boycott of her establishment.

Ask the dentist who lost patients, the family-owned creamery that endured protests and retaliation, or the

In an early skirmish in the battle over the marriage amendment, which will be on the ballot in 2012, the state Campaign Finance Board has issued a ruling that could require a nonprofit organization to disclose the identity of supporters if that organization contributes to the marriage-amendment campaign.

The board's ruling breaks with the interpretation of the law in other recent amendment campaigns, and is an attempt to change the rules in midstream.

As a result, Minnesotans who believe that gay people have a right to live as they wish, but who oppose redefining marriage, may find their civil rights, livelihoods or safety threatened if they dare to oppose what's becoming politically correct orthodoxy.

For those readers unfamiliar with Minnesota's (Red)Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten is the only sane columnist on the paper's staff. Put there, mind you, only to bolster their dismal and declining circulation. The rest of the Bolsheviks and illiterates that write that rag aren't worth mentioning.

You either want to come "out of the closet" and openly admit you're a sex deviate, or you don't. You can't have it both ways (gaining politically-correct benefits of being a sex deviate, as a "Protected Class"), or, openly admitting it and suffering "Right of Association" acts by others who want nothing to do with you, due to your inability to cope with societal and natural norm's.

We have the same situation with another "Protected Class", i.e., blacks, who want all the benfit of being "Equal", but also expect special treatment above what others can have.

This is all about Americans being FORCED to accept what they don't want to be told to do with their lives, just to get votes for a Political Agenda. Private lives should remain private; ONLY when you have alterior motives do you make the private life public and expect it to gain some benefit and "acceptance".

One wonders how a protest against the hatred and defamation of Christians in movies would be characterized by the press these days? If studio heads were protested against, what would the activity be labelled?

Would it be considered shooting over bait if you posted your name and address as a supporter of traditional marriage and waited with appropriate counter measures for the leftists to come and attack you or your home?

What we see in the marriage debate is classic impaired liberal thought processes.

If you oppose same-sex marriage, then you hate homosexuals. That’s how the liberal mind thinks

We see it on other issues too.

If you oppose the cap and trade bill, or other measures to attack global warming, then you favor pollution, and are in favor of rising sea levels and all that.

If you oppose affirmative action, then you are racist.

If you oppose abortion on demand, then you want women to die on the floor, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi’s recent screed on that subject.

If you oppose illegal immigration, then you are xenophobic, heartless and cruel, not paying homage to Ellis Island and the fact that we are a nation of immigrants.

If you oppose the liberal mantra of clean green energy, and want to see more development of our fossil fuels, likewise you want a polluted environment, you hate Mother Earth, you want pollution, etc.

If you oppose liberal feel good gun control regulations, then you are in favor of drive-by shootings.

If you oppose aspects of what’s being done with child obesity, then you are in favor of kids being fat, and in favor of those related health problems.

If you oppose Obamacare, then you are in favor of denying people health care.

The liberal view is that people who oppose their point of view are not just those with differing views, not just mistaken, but that other people are evil and hateful and bigoted in their intentions.

There is a liberal mindset at work when we have debates on the issues. The liberals should be attacked for the mindset, as well as on the content of the issues. They’ve gotten away for far too long with this idea that conservatives are racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and all the rest of it. They say these things and it allows them to avoid debating the actual issue at hand.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.